News and commentary from the heart of Chicago's Community Area 32 and around the world.

July 26, 2010

I will start out by saying that I agree in principle with the Standard Objectivist Position On Immigration. The central solution to most current problems is to reform immigration law and abolish quotas so that the black market is removed, much like the whole war on drugs mess.

However.

I think that the way I most often see this position presented is, at best inaccurate or oversimplified and at worst naive or suicidal. I will call this presentation, "Open Immigration" because that is what its presenters call it and also because that name highlights the key point of what is wrong with it.

First of all, many fail to make the very much necessary distinction between legal residence and citizenship. Most readers will take the position of "Open Immigration" to be "Open Citizenship," and while, yes, you could say that's their problem, I think it's counterproductive to do anything but cut that thing off at the pass. This is a good example of many of the right approaches to not only this point, but of how to frame the case in general. Or a good start, at least.

With that out of the way, comes a few questions which I believe are the best way for me to lay bare what my issue is with the policy name and proposed policy of so-called "Open Immigration."

1) Is your proposed policy that anyone professing or admitting to the Moslem faith is de facto an enemy of the US government, its citizens, and its constitution and therefore may be barred entry?

If so, how can you accurately characterize your position as "Open Immigration?" If not, then we may indeed have deeper disagreements and I believe your proposal may amount to not only a misunderstanding of the principles involved, but also a suicidal self-sacrifice on the part of America.

(As a follow up to that question, what is your position on That Mosque, and if you agree it should be demolished but don't agree with the above point, how do you square those two things?)

2) Would your proposed immigration policy bar members of Mexican drug gangs, Chinese Communists, and other assorted members of murderous organizations and open enemies of the U.S.?

If not, again, that is suicide as above. If so, again whence the term "Open." But perhaps more importantly:

3) Do you not realize that most of the countries which currently represent immigration problems exist under a near or total breakdown of law and order such that it would in most cases be relatively impossible to determine whether entrants were in fact in the above categories? That records from such countries are often either nonexistent, notoriously unreliable, or maliciously deceptive? And furthermore that this is before one even beings to consider the fact that such entrants would be lost in a deluge of millions, such that we would go bankrupt in any attempt to employ enough investigators to determine so many cases?

And that in turn leads to my final question,

5) Given that it is impossible in the case of many countries to determine the danger or harmlessness of applicants, do you believe that the burden of proof in such cases are that the non-citizen applicant is responsible for proving his harmlessness to the citizens and government of America or that the burden of proof rests on America such that if we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an entrant is malicious that we must By Right let him into our midst?

I would answer that the duty of our government is to protect the rights of its citizens first, and the rights of foreigners as a second. And I have yet to hear a convincing (or even non-tautological) argument as to why entry to a governmental jurisdiction for a non-citizen (who, by definition, does not own any claim to such territory) is, as such, a right.

So yes, I suppose one could, in a very technical sense,characterize the proper position on immigration as "Open," given that, absent any of the aforementioned factors, yes we should let anyone who wants it, in.

But at this point, the whole characterization is just inaccurate. And if they're using it as a stand on principle, I'd fear that we're dealing with a wrong or misunderstood principle, or at the very least a poorly-worded position that makes us look bad in front of non-philosophical people who have the good sense to know how impracticable anything with the title "Open Immigration" is in today's context - i.e. just the sort of people we're trying to get this message out to.

Perhaps worst of all, it allows the conservatives, of all people, to gain ground on us with those same people. Conservatives. I'll just let that last one sink in for a bit.

If the law was such a problem - and I do personally believe that it is - then what the hell is wrong with all the people that seemed a-okay with having the thing on the books just so long as, you know, wink wink nudge nudge, there weren't any real efforts to enforce it.

For instance, I think most speed limits are idiotically slow. I mean it would take a literal idiot to need to be that slow to be considered safe. And judging by the fact that the vast majority of the people around me that I see every day are speeding, most people must know on some level this is true. Yet, even with this majority knowing they're wrong, the laws remain.

I think it would end up for the better if they started consistently enforcing speed limits, because then that aforementioned majority of people - who constantly speed - would stop their hypocritical tolerance and actually get the law changed.

Loosely enforced bad laws that practically nobody obeys only serve to foster a police state. They encourage police to be disrespectful of the citizen, because after all everyone breaks the law, and they encourage the law and its enforcement to be non-objective.

It's like altruism - make a moral code which is impossible to practice, and everyone is a sinner... and in the end a willing slave because of it.

So, they're enforcing a bad law now? Good. That means the morons out there can no longer evade the real problem which they should have fixed in the first place.

April 28, 2010

Referring to Obama's efforts to disarm us while the Russians pretend to do the same. (just like he promised to do, by the way)

And actually I can see why Obama can't get it; it's because he's a leftist moron with the kind of delusional thinking that entails. But that doesn't work as an obtuse reference to The Wedding Singer, so I went with the other thing.

August 18, 2009

How ignorant is the public of economics - indeed of any understanding of basic arithmetic? You can't improve the economy by destroying perfectly good property any more than you can "dig up." I feel like any more of an explanation than that risks insulting the intelligence of my dear readers. Yet, clearly, a great deal of America - and certainly Congress - needs it.

The sheer size of that kind of ignorance. We're in this thing deep, here, people.

April 19, 2009

One suggestion to all writers, pundits, bloggers and sentient beings…please never type the word “McMansion” ever, ever
again. It is like the queen of diamonds to the Manchurian Candidate. I
instantly set down the offending reading material and go looking for
someone to kill.

Posted in a comment responding to this Lileks piece, which is also worth reading. All I can add to his well-called-for fisking is a comment aimed at the offending George Will bit. To wit: Really? Really?

March 31, 2009

Occasionally, a story, quip, or comment will come along that strikes me with the thought, "Now why didn't *I* write that? I was certainly *thinking* it." This series will be my hat tip to such occasions.

Parts 1 and 2 are here and here, respectively. And now I present, part 3:

Fifteen Patients Die as Earth Hour Kills Life Support in HospitalBy Brian Briggs

San Francisco, CA – Fifteen patients on life support and in surgery died at San Francisco General Hospital when power was cut for "Earth hour" on Saturday.

The hospital was pleased with their participation in the worldwide celebration of the planet. "We asked all the patients and their families if they were all right with us cutting the power. To a person, they all said as stewards of this planet it was their duty to observe Earth Hour. They knew the risks and were willing to take it," said hospital administrator Lawrence Cho...